The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the impugned order due to misapplication of the relevant provisions.

ORDER :

1. Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution, is being invoked by the petitioner herein for setting aside of order dated 13.02.2024 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Jammu (for short “the Trial Court”) in suit titled as “Dr. Parmodh Baru and another Vs Smt. Rachna Gupta.”

2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the plaintiffs/respondents herein instituted a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking possession of a plot of land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas and 7l sq.ft comprising under Khasra No. 202 min, khewat No. 101 min and Khata No. 127 min along with a residential house constructed thereon situated at Rani Park Jammu (for short “the suit property”).

The suit supra was maintained on the premise that the suit property fell into the share of one Prem Parkash, his two sisters and mother, which Prem Parkash shifted to Sweden in 1962 and that the father of the plaintiffs/ respondents herein took over the possession of the suit property after the departure of the said Prem Parkash from India and his settlement in Sweden and the property remained in exclusive physical possession of the father of the plaintiffs/respondents herein and upon his death under the plaintiffs/respondents herein without any interference having got matured into ownership on account of adverse possession as the electricity bills & water connection qua the suit property used to be paid by the plaintiffs/respondents herein besides having a landline telephone connection installed therein despite the fact that the electricity and water connections have had been in the name of the father of the above named Prem Parkash, namely Sh. Sant Ram and that the suit property was neither allowed by the plaintiffs/ respondents herein to be taken over or possessed by the said Prem Parkash nor the said Prem Parkash made any effort to recover the possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs/respondents herein and that the said Prem Parkash having executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant/petitioner herein and got it registered on 16.01.2024 before Sub-Registrar, Jammu after obtaining relevant revenue extracts from the revenue authorities malafidely and despite the fact that the said Prem Parkash was never in possession of the suit property and that despite that the execution of said sale-deed the possession of the suit property was never handed over by the plaintiffs/respondents herein to the defendant/petitioner herein and that the defendant/petitioner herein never revealed to the plaintiffs/respondents herein to have filed a suit before the Court of Ist Additional Munsiff, Jammu for injunction in respect of the suit property against the plaintiffs/respondents herein having sought therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and that on 04.02.2024 when the plaintiffs/respondents herein were away with their family at Kathua, the defendant/petitioner herein with her muscleman forcefully entered into the suit property by breaking upon the locks and removed the belongings of the plaintiffs/ respondents herein, inasmuch as, constructed a boundary wall blocking the entry of the plaintiffs/respondents herein to the suit property from their own property being abutting the suit property and also locked the common entrance gate of the suit property as well as to the property of the plaintiffs/respondents herein and that the plaintiffs/ respondents herein came to know about the said incident through one of their neighbours on mobile phone, whereupon the plaintiffs/respondents herein immediately reached on spot and stopped the construction going on besides informing the Police Post, Parade Ground, Jammu.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents herein alongside the aforesaid suit also filed an application for interim relief, which application, however, during the course of proceedings was not pressed and a statement thereto came to be made by then